Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
No information received during the first six months after the submission, until the message, following my request, that the handling editor was having problems to secure a second reviewer, but that, given the long time elapsed, the EiC had asked him to proceed with what he had presently. Then, no news until about ten months since the submission, when, after my new request, I was informed that all the due reviews were already with the handling editor and a decision could be expected soon. Then, no news for two more months, when the paper was rejected with no possibility to reply in spite of a quite negative and a quite positive evaluation by two different reviewers, none of whom explicitly denying the possibility to revise it since none of their concerns required new analyses and data to be addressed. Actually, most of the negative comments had to do with the apparent lack of clarity of some parts of the manuscript rather than structural/methodological problems of the study. No further reply to my new message expressing my obvious disappointment by how the whole procedure was carried out.
Motivation:
Review of the manuscript was handled professionally. The editor summarized the reviewers' comments into 7 experiments/concerns that were to be addressed. This made our work a lot easier, and clarified the goals.
Motivation:
The requirements for the journal to even send our paper out for review were too stringent. The number of experiments, all in vivo, that they requested to consider a future resubmission would have doubled the amount of data in the paper. We did not consider all the requested experiments to be critical for the story we were presenting.
Motivation:
While the editor and reviewers requested several experiments in the first round of revision, the requirements were clear. Once we met those requirements, the editor accepted the manuscript.
Motivation:
The only criticism for the way the manuscript was handled, is that initial review took a long time, but this was likely due to the time of year (holiday season). The reviewers' concerns were valid, and appropriate. This was a direct submission, and the review process improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
The process was very fast, professional and direct.
Motivation:
The submission interface is easy to follow, the editor was rapid in dealing with the manuscript. I did not have any issues with the process and will look into submitting more papers to this journal in the future.
4.4 weeks
4.6 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
professional and efficient review process
Motivation:
The submission system is very author-friendly, and the rejection at least was fast and (nearly) painless.
Motivation:
Overall the review process was very efficient and helpful. The editor also offered guidance on which were the most pressing points to address in the revision which was helpful.
Motivation:
On the website, Social Forces mentions its commitment to speedy review several times. The website clearly says that administrative processing takes one business day - we found that it took seven. And where the journal says repeatedly that they respect authors time and will make speedy decisions to desk reject, we heard nothing for three weeks, even though we sent a polite follow up email. We subsequently decided to withdraw the paper. Perhaps the process is not slow overall, but for a journal that makes many claims about being speedy, over three weeks to not even know whether the paper would be peer reviewed seems like a lot.
n/a
n/a
17 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
It was rejected and they suggested it would be better fit in their other journal (eg. The Annals of the American Thoracic Society).
Motivation:
They publish your work in both Spanish and English. They give great feedback during the submission process.
Motivation:
Name of reviewers, dates, marked corrections are all published along with your article on their website.
8.7 weeks
32.4 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
I think that the former and the current EIC's are excellent. The problem is that some reviewers of this journal are not hat I would call "top-notch" in terms of awareness to novelty in the field. But overall, I view this journal very highly after 3 papers there and I will definitely continue publishing there
Motivation:
Unfortunately no explanation for decision - and this after over a month of waiting.
12.6 weeks
12.6 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Rejected
Motivation:
The review process took a lot of time. It took 2.5 months before they could find a reviewer. I would have appreciated it, if they had sent a short e-mail explaining why the review process took so long. Howevery, the editorial officer replied quikcly after my inquiry about the delay. This, as well as the apologies for the delay mentioned in the final decision, was much appreciated.
Although the reviewer's comment was positive with some remarks, I still was a little disappointed: He/she explained that a certain outcome of the study would have been more interesting for the jounal's readers. I was surprised to read this, as the outcome which the reviewer was referring to, was actually the main outcome of the study. It appeared the reviewer had not thoroughly read the manuscript.
Although the reviewer's comment was positive with some remarks, I still was a little disappointed: He/she explained that a certain outcome of the study would have been more interesting for the jounal's readers. I was surprised to read this, as the outcome which the reviewer was referring to, was actually the main outcome of the study. It appeared the reviewer had not thoroughly read the manuscript.
Motivation:
Although the review process took quite some time, I was still satisfied with how the manuscript was handeled. I received two reviewer comments as well as an editorial comment which in my opinion, were helpful for improving my manuscript. You could sense that the reviewers thoroughly read the manuscript as the minor revisions encompassed not only the lay-out but also, for example, some critical comments regarding the methodology.
Much appreciated was the postponement of the resubmission deadline due to a holiday of the first author.
Much appreciated was the postponement of the resubmission deadline due to a holiday of the first author.
Motivation:
Two reviewers split, a third was brought in. In essence, the third reviewer didn't like the methods used in a small part of the paper because he believed - dogmatically - that his own were the only way to go.
Motivation:
Reviews deeply split. Editor acted quickly
47.7 weeks
73.8 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
It is long time from submit to accept.
Motivation:
The speed of the reviews was very reasonable. In hindsight, the reviewers could have asked for aspects of the data be presented, which would have helped with its interpretation by subsequent studies. The aspect in point were the dates at which the disease pathogen were observed. But then it was not in the objectives of the paper to measure "when", but "where". Subsequent research questions are now "when".
Motivation:
I have published several papers in this Journal. So far the reviewing process was very good, the assigned editor was responsive, tried to evaluate the manuscript and the reviews and provided suggestions to improve the quality of the submitted papers and, in this way, of the Journal. This time, we received reports from 2 people that apparently did not take to the time to even scan the manuscript. One of them provided a self-conflicting and irrelevant report. He started with suggestions for minor things to change and in the end he recommended rejecting the paper. The other reviewer presented papers (perhaps his own) that were clearly unrelated to the topic we examined. The worst thing is that the assigned editor (unknown to us) did not bother to even scan the paper or the reviews, hence he ordered the Journal editorial office to rejected it without even bothering to write an explanatory letter.
n/a
n/a
3 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
Motivation:
The reviewer criticized the manuscript purely based on lack of methodological innovation, while not paying any interest at all at the results and contribution of the manuscript to understand an ill-researched topic. I found the arguments for rejection very shallow and purely academic, i.e. absolutely no effort was done to place the value of the manuscript in a context of contributing to an ill-researched topic. Some of the arguments were not valid and showed that the reviewer had not carefully read the manuscript. The editor based the rejection on a single, unsympathetic reviewer report, which I do not find fair.
Motivation:
The editor's letter was fair, but I do not fully agree with the reasons of rejection. Limited geographical scope was used as an argument. However, if you check articles in recent issues of the journal, this argument does not hold. I do not have the feeling that my manuscript was sufficiently checked for its fit into the journal. The editor was simply not interested in the topic and deemed it not important enough. I do not think I will try this journal again.
Motivation:
Fast response, good reviewers and fast editorial decision.
Motivation:
The quality of some of the published papers is a mere shame, so I am happy this editor rejected consistently all the papers (2 or 3) we submitted. Imagine that a paper on the fatigue behavior of titanium alloy dental implants.....does not belong to "dental materials". That really makes me wonder. What is more sad is the lack of reaction of Elsevier who decided not to interfere with the decision. papers were never sent for review, they were rejected outright with a standard letter. The Editor ignored all correspondence.
Motivation:
The process was very slow, the communication from editors and even online was poor, and the editorial leadership and guidance absent. Overall a very disappointing experience.